Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 15, 2012 3:00pm-3:30pm PDT

3:00 pm
great job because everybody did it differently. everybody had different resources. technically, we have more resources today than we have never had in the history of doing this. >> i do not mean comparing. i'm talking about our experience from our decision making process. >> how would you translate what you said into what you -- what we might recommend? >> what was our decision making process, and we would recommend they would consider remodeling the process. they might want to look into our own decision making model. that is how i would recommend.
3:01 pm
not that we are comparing ourselves. >> can i mckay -- make a suggestion that if other people have recommendations, we consider those individually, just to keep things moving. >> i feel like that is taking us backwards. >> i feel like everyone is talking generically and no one has had time to consider. i have mine comments, i think we should follow up with what david has done. >> i am not disagreeing with you. >> i see two recommendations. under subsection a. i think we should look at them individually, say yes or no, --
3:02 pm
>> so you want to vote. -- want a vote. i am totally fine with that. i do not agree. i thought we had done that. all right. the proposal is, the first paragraph, recommendations that will require more time. the general idea, i do not want to groupthink but the general idea is a recommendation about more time for the task force to build a work plan, house some role in the court plan or selection -- work plan or selection. that is the first recommendation. at the end of each item, as rio is due. -- as we always do.
3:03 pm
>> i would vote no to include that. we have spent a significant amount of time. to the extent we can cut things off of our list, that is our advantage. i do not want to add to the time we have party spent. i think our time is best spent drawing a map. >> these recommendations, and the war, if that is what you're referencing, is for ms. melara. >> no. >> got it. sorry. member lam: i agree. i think eight months was enough time. >> everybody can say what they
3:04 pm
wanted to. saarinen made some assumptions. -- sorry i made some assumptions. member schreiber: there is nothing in my experience that expect -- suggested we would have been benefited by having more time. i was satisfied with the proposed suggestion that we save the city consider those things and leave it at that. i would be happy either to eliminate the recommendations or say that the city could consider them. but would not be my recommendation of those things are necessary. >> i'm not sure where you just said. you can live with that of
3:05 pm
someone else agrees? in or out? >> as modified by -- >> it would require additional -- >> the modification is no. member pilpel: my preference would be to include it as modified. i think we have gained experience going through this. the city and others could benefit from that experience. i would like to capture some of it. to the point of adding time, i think it would be worth starting earlier. i am not sure i am in favor of adding more time in total. if there is a charter amendment, i think it would be good for the body to include it by march 15. move the whole thing up by a
3:06 pm
month. the same amount of time the start sooner. i think there are ways to accomplish it. i think including some language about our lessons learned is good. i would favor keeping some modified language. member mondejar: i would recommend we retain this. it seems to me that the next task force would want to find out what we've learned from our process. i vote for us to retain this with the recommendatioion -- recommended suggestions. we spend time listening to the previous task force. i would have loved to look at some things that i could learn
3:07 pm
from and think about. member lam: as i said, i would not move forward with a recommendation for this particular section. member melara: i am not necessarily in favor of extending the time that i would not mind telling the city that time was a factor in us not doing certain things. the plan fell through -- we did not have time to hire the right consultants. the city has a process. unfortunately, time was an issue. while it may not require the task force to meet for 10
3:08 pm
months, it may require some people to get together and put this in place before we sit down. the fact is we were not able to hire the people we wanted to hire. >> we can consider that under community outreach. >> what i am saying is that time was a factor in a variety of issues. it is a factor. it is a factor in putting together a plan, all of these is a factor. i'm not necessarily in favor of the task force meeting more time of the possibility that some of these pieces be in place, requiring additional time. >> its sounds like -- >> we have a question on the table. you are a yes?
3:09 pm
member leigh: noting the language in the draft we have, having more to do with the redistricting, that is the specific role addressed in the draft as we see it. on that basis, would rather strike it. i do not think, speaking for myself, that was a lesson that i took away. i am glad that the selection was made before we took our rolls on. i do not think that was a bad thing for our process. it is a lesson for me. i will moscow the other way that would be a good thing for the city to have in place before the
3:10 pm
tax -- a task force is convened. i am willing not to have a data all. >> we're talking about in or out. >> i am putting this together so it affects my thinking process. i am saying that it could be all you have to say is that timing was a factor and then bullet point how that affected the process. it does not have to say anything else. >> are you done? member alonso: i'm going to say no. time was a factor but speed was
3:11 pm
a factor. speed on the part of the allocation of funds for us to do a proper outreach. i like ms. tiwell's idea. in regards to if it is a question of one more month, and that is irrelevant. our lessons are going to be different 10 years from now. they will have new communities that will have risen. if they want to know what i am going to say or how i feel, i will be standing on that side of the podium introducing myself. that is how i'm going to do it. i will see all of you 10 years from now.
3:12 pm
member tidwell: everyone has voted so i will zip it. for my impression, this would be my suggestion. on process, you would delete a suggestion to amend the charter to hire a consultant. we might consider other suggestions on community outreach. you would have a bullet point, something the says an outreach consultant and ensure you speak with the city attorney about how to acquire that consultant. >> it is not the city attorney. >> he consult on what the process is and what the restrictions are. or that there are additional,
3:13 pm
whatever the group may be. >> is a purchasing issue. >> my suggestion for a bullet point of the recommendation would be an outreach consultant asking the city attorney for purchasing guidelines regarding hiring. >> i do not have any problems. i just need to move on what this. i am very tired tonight. >> can i say something? member melara has volunteered to
3:14 pm
do this. now we are doing all kinds of things. i want to suggest that, let them do what they volunteered for. >> we made an agreement. an agreement that we would review the recommendations. that is the one place that this subjective as opposed to objective. 90% is objective. it is easy to hand it over to them and they do it. the recommendations are subjective. we have to have agreement on what is included and what is not included. this is an appropriate discussion. our challenges reaching agreement on each of these. more the discussion. disagreement on the recommendations around the process where we seem to be
3:15 pm
differing on the level of specificity. there is an insurance contract in with consultants and with outreach efforts. there is also the issue of one of the task force is comprised. there are viewpoints on both sides of that. >> i think that is a way to characterize this. those issues ought to be considered by the city family so that you do not just and up -- end up not having a choice. we have seen in our process and some of the reports we saw from san diego, others have made
3:16 pm
different choices about it. different ways to structure it. if we say something along the lines that you have just said, that those issues should be thought about earlier on and by appropriate people. >> i make a distinction between recommendations, hiring sooner, whatever it be, and different from a catalog of things to consider as you embark upon the path of redistricting. i'm saying those are different. all of that said, it sounds like there is a statement to be made in terms of a recommendation.
3:17 pm
i'm going to go to ms. tidwell. i know it is late but we have to get this done. we can labor through it or we can not get it done. the report is the least required of all our work. we do not have to kill ourselves over the report. especially this section. >> the one thing in the report is the findings you make, regarding the justified by% deviation. i urge you to make sure that those get in the report. chair mcdonnell: ok. member tidwell: i am sensing we may not get agreement on what we think the record -- recommendations are. to the extent task members have suggestions, not responding to public comment, the charter amendment, there is can be
3:18 pm
included under youru! -- so ano suggest. if you have nine, that is a potential way to move forward. i would propose that. chair mcdonnell: mr. schreiber. member schreiber: ok. member lam: yes. member melara: yes, i am fine wiht that. -- with that. chair mcdonnell: the only thing i would ask is that he would title this section appropriately. that these are the
3:19 pm
recommendations of individuals. as opposed to minority opinions. there may be some constituents. so it is clear what folks are reviewing. member leigh: i think i am ok with this. i'm trying to imagine what it might look like and what it might contain. chair mcdonnell: in general, a volume and two sentences. member leigh: that is part of what i'm grappling with. if it ends up being completely open to whoever wants to contribute what ever thought, it could end up looking different than our own opinions. if we are all comfortable with that, that is fine. i'm willing to go with it.
3:20 pm
bring it back and see what it looks like. member alonso: i will see you back here in 2022. chair mcdonnell: 4 lessons learned on recommendation, what we have agreed to do is move forward with each member representing his or her points of view around the lessons learned and recommendations. the section will be subtitled. individual lessons learned and recommendations. they will not be edited other than grammatical. >> even then, they can do their thing. there are some things that we agree on. whether we want to include those, especially around outreach. there were two things. whether we want to recommend that departments provide data
3:21 pm
and information to the task force and whether additional time and resources are needed for a plan to do -- to be developed because when they came on, we did not have enough money and then we did not have enough time hiring of consultants we needed. chair mcdonnell: one is around data from city departments. member tidwell: my suggestion would be to the extent there are recommendations, we can do that on saturday. combine those to what the general recommendation would be. member schreiber: i am ok with ms. melara's suggestion.
3:22 pm
member pilpel: by it -- i think i am with a member melara but i am also open to do it individually. chair mcdonnell: from her point of view, there are two areas we have agreement on. two ideas -- one around city departments and data, the other more time around the outreach plan. member schreiber: yes, i am with that. >> i also submitted something. chair mcdonnell: we are not on community outreach. we are on city departments. we're going to come to outreach.
3:23 pm
member lam: i think it is important to have a reflection recommendation on how departments can be considered or incorporated for the task force. member leigh: yes. member alonso: yes. chair mcdonnell: she will craft a recommendation. the second one is around time to plan, time and resources, to plan for outreach. it is not properly stated? >> that is very prompt -- broad. member tidwell: i would suggest note to additional time but it should be considered earlier on in the process. chair mcdonnell: ok.
3:24 pm
member schreiber: yes. it should be considered for the task force -- before the task forces established. member pilpel: yes. member lam: yes. member leigh: yes. member alonso: yes. chair mcdonnell: those two. ms. melara will craft. >> for the process, i know that i will be the first draft tomorrow -- i will have the first draft mark. when we are still getting together, this will be the last time we're going to meet. we should still have a computer available to make changes.
3:25 pm
i do not know what you're going to do with that. chair mcdonnell: think about that for a moment. i will last a few of any recommendations in that regard. hold that for a moment. the other piece of the report we need to consider, thank you for an initial draft. >> are we going past community outreach or are we leaving that out? chair mcdonnell: everything else, we will do individually. >> i would make section 5 of the report with their reasons for increasing deviation. chair mcdonnell: did you have a
3:26 pm
point of view on where? ok. what you have is an initial first pass on the justification for the deviation. the requirement, and get ready because this may or may not be read correct, this is the requirement is that we offer this for plus or minus 1%. not necessarily for all of them. yes or no? >> yes. >> that would be great. if you could send me a revised version. >> who is sending it to me? >chair mcdonnell: we can list
3:27 pm
them all. we are only required those better over plus or minus 1%. >> can i give more background on how i drafted this? chair mcdonnell: in a moment. to the first question, all or that which is above or below 1%? >> the requirement is you have to explain, identified the neighborhoods that explain the deviations. those might be inside or outside of the district in which there is a deviation. >> does that change whether we list them all or not? >> it could. my impression was based on a feedback we needed to do that.
3:28 pm
instead of suggesting, because there is a ripple effect, instead of saying district 1 espies - 1, and here are the neighborhoods that we have preserved and we have preserved x. r. cotter was more beneficial to preserve -- if you are in district 1 and you do to -- tan other neighborhoods, that would be the implication as opposed to saying, so it was a more clear picture, recognizing neighborhoods. >> does that satisfy? >> yes. >> her approach is similar to how the san diego commission
3:29 pm
reported their findings. that was my thinking that that is how it would be incorporated into our reports, in section 4. my question is, if we are to agree to this type of format for adoption, how does that differ -- defer into that final map? am i making any sense? member melara: you are right. it would seem redundant to if we are going to include both. i would rather include the deviations. at the same time, i would point to one thing, what ms. tid


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on